Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] facism gaining ground in US

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Jul 22, 2004, at 6:58 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> > > > > > "Pierce" == Pierce T Wetter, <address@hidden> writes:
>
>     Pierce> I don't think "limited war" is a joke,
>
> Well, you wrote that you did. ;-)

 Did I? Hmmm...

>     Pierce> but I think at that point our soldiers have become
>     Pierce> policemen.
>
> No, I disagree.  The "opposition" are not ordinary criminals, or even
> organized crime.[sic] Dealing with that is soldier work, not police 
> work.

 Ok, I agree that fighting guerrillas is soldier work, but it also 
requires
special training. The soldiers in Iraq I talk to spend half their time 
doing
stuff for the Iraqis (building schools, cleaning up mess). That's all 
hearts
and minds, but one wonders how much of that they have to learn as they 
go.

 I seriously doubt any of the "how to defeat the Russians" mindset is 
very
useful.

 On the other hand, I'm pretty ignorant of this whole issue. Perhaps the
point of most basic training is to teach soldiers not to whine, and 
after
that every thing is easy.

>     Pierce> It would also worry me if we started training our army to
>     Pierce> be able to peacefully subjugate the population.
>
> Uh, put that way it scares me shitless.  _I_'m a population, too.  :-/

 Yeah, exactly my point.

 On the other hand, we spend so much on the military, that it wouldn't 
be
the end of the world if they were trained in say, disaster relief so 
that
it could become quite natural for us to send them places in the US where
something bad had happened, and they would quickly clean up and rebuild.

 After about 5-10 years of practice, perhaps that could even be a
worldwide mission. There are 2-3 natural disasters every year, and it
would be great public diplomacy.

>     Pierce> Earlier you said that you thought he deserved a red card
>     Pierce> instead of a yellow card. While I believe that there are
>     Pierce> certain moral absolutes and that Rumsfeld violated them, I
>     Pierce> also believe that you should judge not.
>
> Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.  Maybe I've been in Japan
> too long; here the guy who gets fired is _never_ the one who created
> the problem.  (That guy is long since comfortably retired.)
>
> Anyway, note I said fired, not "hung" or even imprisoned.  This is not
> a judgment, this is an executive decision.  You can fire somebody for
> one mistake, or even for being in the neighborhood of a mistake.
> These guys serve at the pleasure of the President.  While I can hardly
> expect Bush to fall on his sword, a high-ranking head has to roll IMO.
> While military people have to be punished as well, the civilian
> adminstration needs to make a show of taking responsibility.  It has
> to hurt.  Who's left?  You can't pin it on Powell or Rice, can you?

  I could pin it on Tenet...

  I'd agree with you if they hadn't already taken steps to prosecute
the people involved.

>     Pierce> Civilian casualties would be even worse if he hadn't
>     Pierce> forced Franks to completely revise the war plan to be much
>     Pierce> less damaging to Iraq. Men produce both good and bad, I
>     Pierce> haven't quite figured out where you draw the line and say
>     Pierce> "this is the limit".
>
> If it were a matter of balance, I'd agree.  But as you say, I'm trying
> to come up with some absolutes that are "no-brainers", that we _can_
> respect without much constraining strategy.[1]

  Well, the armed forces are ahead of you in some sense. They have some
very strict rules of engagement:

   1. Are they throwing rocks at you? Yes? You can't shoot.
   2. Are they shooting at you? Are they aiming? No? You can't shoot.
   3. Are they shooting at you? Are they aiming? Yes? Are they coming 
close?
      No, you can't shoot.
   4. Are they shooting at you? Are they aiming? Yes? Are they coming 
close?
      Yes? Ok, you can shoot back, but stop after you hit the guys with 
good aim.

 What amazes me is the soldiers I talk to are actually willing to 
follow that.


> Nadim claimed that we
> killed 5 million Vietnamese (and Laotians and Cambodians); I don't
> recall whether that figure is at all accurate, but surely the number
> was high enough that if the U.S. had lost the Vietnam War instead of
> managing a draw, Nixon and Kissinger would have spent time in the hot
> seat at the Hague, even if they managed to avoid conviction.  That
> kind of thing must not be allowed to happen ever again.

  Er, did you forget Johnson on accident?

  Personally, I blame Robert McNamara for most of the deaths on both 
sides,
but I think Vietnam is way off topic.

> And we must tighten the rules for "that kind of thing" as much as
> possible.  I don't know what actually might be legitimate, but I'm
> pretty sure that U.S. interventionism goes well past the boundary.

 Part of the reason the Iraq war doesn't bother me so much is that I
see it as just a new battle in a war that started in 1990 when Saddam
invaded Kuwait. Given that we were doing 1000 flights/day over Iraq
and being shot at every day, and shooting back, to my way of thinking
all you can give Bush credit/blame for is turning up the heat.

 Pierce